Sunday, December 12, 2010

Why the sting in feminist sex?

Second wave feminists fought for the sexual liberation of women. What they meant by this was that sex should no longer be directed toward romantic love or toward family, which were thought to be ploys of the patriarchy to oppress women. Instead, women were to throw off sexual restraints and engage in casual sex on their own terms, just as it was supposed men did.

There were to be no limits on sex, with the one exception that sex was to be consensual (so that the autonomy of either party would not be breached).

Feminists succeeded in changing the culture (with the assistance of men like Hugh Hefner). But how has it all worked out?

Consider the Julian Assange case. In one sense, he is among the winners of the sexual revolution. For most men, it has become more difficult to form a stable relationship with a woman of their own level. That's because women are now more likely to pursue their hypergamous instincts and to use their sexual power to try to attract a small number of "alpha" males (or else to select more crudely on the basis of sexual markers such as risk-taking behaviour or thuggish appearance etc).

But Julian Assange was one of the favoured few who was actively pursued by many women. He went to Sweden and had sex with two women there. The women did, initially at least, give their consent. But now he has been charged with rape.

What went wrong? The details of the charges aren't exactly clear yet. But I'd suggest that underlying it all, several factors are at play.

First, in the new conditions, men like Julian Assange don't have to treat women that well. He has a steady stream of willing female sex partners, whom he can treat as brusquely as he likes. So women like Anna Ardin or Sofia Wilen might well feel, after the act, as if they've been used or have somehow been put at a disadvantage or have experienced a lack power in the exchange.

Second, it's likely that numbers of women don't really respond that well to casual sex and have regrets later. The two Swedish women seem to have worried that they might have left themselves vulnerable to STIs and felt physically violated in this sense.

Third, Anna Ardin is a feminist who believes in patriarchy theory. She believes that men use sex to maintain social dominance over women. She is primed, therefore, to think of sex as an act of exploitation or oppression.

It's a toxic combination. Let's say you're a 31-year-old Anna Ardin. You've been brought up to believe that you should engage freely in sex. You've directed your efforts to winning over a leftist alpha male. Along comes a real leftist alpha, Julian Assange. You have sex with him. But he is not a considerate lover and you find out he's having sex with another younger woman at the same time. You're now 31 and starting to worry about your age. It's not working out. You feel used and violated. Your feminism tells you that men as a class use sex to oppress and control women. What recourse do you have?

It's difficult in the new conditions to appeal to moral or cultural standards. After all, the idea of the sexual revolution was that men and women were to be treated exactly the same and that both would be liberated by engaging freely in casual sex.

Nor can women like Anna Ardin exercise the kind of influence over men that wives or girlfriends traditionally could. When a woman is in a relationship with a man, she has power to influence his behaviour. But when she is simply another notch in the belt of an alpha male she has no power over him at all.

So it's not surprising that feminist women like Anna Ardin look increasingly to a more formal, legal control over men, including using a range of "date rape" laws to try to control male behaviour.

It's difficult to see this working out, though. It's an unwieldy tool to use to control personal relationships. And it doesn't solve the underlying problems: it won't cure the disappointments of women like Anna Ardin who are unlikely ever to win the romantic commitment of alpha leftist males, nor will it undo the contradiction within feminist politics in which it is believed, on the one hand, that sex should be "liberated" from the restraints of romance or family commitments, whilst on the other hand believing that sex is an oppressive instrument of male control over women.

51 comments:

Nor can women like Anna Ardin exercise the kind of influence over men that wives or girlfriends traditionally could. When a woman is in a relationship with a man, she has power to influence his behaviour. But when she is simply another notch in the belt of an alpha male she has no power over him at all.

This is a very good point. I've often wondered what is supposed to be so empowering about casual sex? It's not that hard to seduce a man (as they've shown, just show up and be cute), so one can't really consider it to be much of an accomplishment.

The issue isn't casual or committed sex. its sex in a century with HIV.

now there is some concern over this being a political farce (for instance, even though spitzer was guilty the story didn't break until he started doing thing that upset people politically)

what assange is accused of is having sex without using a comdom after she asked him to. her consent was predicated on the use of protection. he decieved her and broke their consenual agreement.thats assult.

in the other charge the condom broke, but they kept having sex. he is only guitly if he knew it broke. this is a harder issue to prove.

Hairdye, the prosecution hasn't yet made clear its specific complaints against Assange. My post wasn't really an attempt to deal with the confused reports about specifics, but about the larger context in which two women sought out sexual encounters, boasted of them afterwards, but later came to think they had been violated.

And from what I've read, he said he wasn't going to put it on and she consented to having sex with him regardless. I haven't read a version where he said he would but didn't and she only noticed afterwards.

The whole thing is ridiculous. The younger girl after spending a day with him, decided to take him back to her house on the train. She complained that during the trip Assange was "more interested in his computer than her". What bloody planet was she living on? This is a guy who she admired for being a computer leaker, and who was right in the midst of one the highest profile and most demanding leaking processes ever attempted, and her complaint is that he didn't drop everything the moment he saw her. Well who was she? Some young groupie. Clearly she was expecting or wanting him to fall in love with her.

What we have here then is these women maintaining the romantic ideas of the powerful man coming along and sweeping them off their feet. This is combined with an entitlement culture that says that you're entitled to this kind of man, preferably without having to do very much yourself. Then if it doesn't work out you flip him from the "good" man, the man you want, to the "bad" man, of feminist dogma who is selfish and exploitative etc. That's your moral opening then for a rape allegation.

Maybe these women should go to jail. At the very least they need a reality check. So the sisters can rally around these poor women and as was stated in the meantime it makes relations between the sexes harder. Yes men have an obligation to not act badly, preferably not like a shit, but women have an obligation too, and can't crawl into the victim fetal position the moment they don't get what they want.

I don't know what Swedish law says about rape, but presumably it is a crime that has elements one has to prove. A woman can't just walk in to the police station and say, "I feel angry at a man with whom I had consensual sex. Please charge him with a crime."

The underlying allegations of the Assange prosecution are still unclear. But there does seem to be some indication that the women are saying he went condomless without their consent. I saw at least one story that seems to imply that one or both of them may have withdrawn consent during the encounter, either because they realized he wasn't using a condom or because he was engaging in acts that they did not want. (I believe Ms. Ardin was quoted as saying that the encounter "turned abusive.")

If those are in fact the allegations, that very well may be sexual assault under Swedish law -- and it seems to me rightfully so. It is hard for me to even imagine what the argument would be as to why it should be lawful for a man to proceed without a condom against his partner's consent.

I don't know what Swedish law says about rape, but presumably it is a crime that has elements one has to prove.

The Stockholm prosecutor thought that nothing had happened in contravention of the law but she was overruled by another prosecutor who has said that the interpretation of the law is not an exact science.

Which makes the situation appear confusing at the moment in terms of what actually happened.

I do think, though, that the scenario I described in the post will turn out to explain the background context reasonably well.

To borrow from Stacy McCain, the practical effect of these laws is "to absolve one class of willful participants in fornication — the women — of any responsibility for the consequences of their choices, so that when the other class of participants — the men — act as it might easily be predicted many of them will act under such circumstances, the police powers of the state are invoked: Surprise! You’re a criminal!" Some man, and it is always a man, is driven from pillar to post as the law enforcement apparatus futilely attempts to determine the exact nature and sequence of bedroom events as if they were auditing corporate negotiations. Women frequently register the complaint weeks after the sexual encounter.

It is hard for me to even imagine what the argument would be as to why it should be lawful for a man to proceed without a condom against his partner's consent.

The argument isn't that it should be lawful conduct per se, but that the social cost of enforcement is too high. It requires turning every sexual encounter into pornography marketed to lawyers. The state's reach has extended from protecting women from sexual violence to enforcing mutual consent at every point throughout a sexual encounter. Understandably, most men don't want their bedroom conduct subject to state audit at a woman's discretion, and at a time of her choosing. Within reasonable boundaries a woman should be made to own her bad taste in men. Over time, the effect of such an understanding will be that most of these problems are avoided by different "upstream" choices.

The complaint against Assange should have been laughed out the door. Instead, an international arrest warrant was issued.

The disagreement between the prosecutors doesn't mean there isn't a good case. Maybe the first prosecutor is a moron or overly timid. Or maybe the second prosecutor is a moron or overly aggressive. We just can't conclude much from the disagreement either way.

What bothers me, though, is the vilification of these young women when we haven't yet heard them tell their own story. To me, it seems incredible that a young woman would go to all this trouble to "punish" a man she hardly knows for being slightly rude or sleeping around. And, if this woman is a radical feminist, she would have known quite well that bringing a rape accusation would result in being shamed and smeared and doubted (if not necessarily to the degree that has in fact occurred). I can't imagine that any woman who knows anything about women's issues would undergo making a rape accusation lightly. What would be in it for her but a whole world of grief? She doesn't even know this guy.

This idea that women are willing to go to extreme lengths to ruin a man's life in revenge for some petty slight seems wholly implausible to me. Yeah, people --women included -- do bad things, but usually not at horrible inconvenience to themselves and usually only for some kind of gain.

The scenario that seems most likely to me is this: Woman A has sex with Assange, during which the condom breaks and he keeps going over her protests OR he failed to put on a condom in the first place despite her statement that she was consenting conditioned upon him wearing a condom. Later, Woman A talks to Woman B and learns that she had a similar experience with Assange. This is no light matter considering that it could mean STIs or even pregnancy for the women. Learning that this was not a one-time event for Mr. Assange, but rather his M.O., the women determine that this needs to be brought to the police. They may feel more inclined to do so than originally because they have each other for moral support, or because they now realize that it wasn't one-off but a pattern that may place other women in danger. There could be a thousand different explanations for their actions and motivations that do not involve them being evil, lying bitches who have nothing better to do than ruin the life of some guy they barely know for no legitimate reason. I suppose anything is possible but it seems ridiculous to go straight to the "crazy, lying bitches" theory.

Now that's not to say Mr. Assange is necessarily guilty. Maybe what he is alleged to have done is not a violation of Swedish law. Maybe there was some sort of horrible miscommunication. Who knows? There could be a thousand explanations in his vindication as well. We just don't know at this point.

I am also troubled by the suggestion in this post that a woman who has consensual sex with a man has no right to complain about whatever happens to her. Look, I am not saying that casual sex with near-strangers is a wise course of action for either men or women. But, if I go home with a strange man for a romp and he punches me in the face, I have a right to complain. A man's failure to wear a condom over the woman's objection, or failing to put on a condom over the woman's objection (if that is what occurred) is a serious thing. I don't think the women forfeited their right to complain by going home with him.

Sexual assault requires a lack of consent to the act of sex. This is without conditions so whether a condom was promised or not is irrelevant. Misleading your partner into thinking you're using a condom when you're not might be a separate offence. However, if one partner withdraws consent, and reasonably communicates this, for whatever reason including not wanting to proceed without a condom, then if the other proceeds its sexual assault. As was stated though the proof of this is nightmarish as the event must take place beyond a reasonable doubt and there are almost never any witnesses or additional evidence.

I pretty much agree with Jesse 7. I wanted to address a couple of things in the comments above:

1) THE TAKI ARTICLE LINKED BY WILLIAM: The author seemed to have an axe to grind. At the end of the article, he expresses wistfulness for the days when rape victims were deeply ashamed and remained silent. At one point, he excitedly says, "Go bro!" when he describes Assange getting laid and needlessly describes how Assange mounted "those golden haunches." The author seems to have a natural contempt for and suspicion of women that doubtless colored his piece. He is also getting his information second hand from the Daily Mail. While the Daily Mail has seen the original police reports, their reporting was also doubtless colored by their famous contempt for women.

That said, there is surely some degree of accuracy in the facts reported in the Taki article. What is most striking to me is that the author seems to think that the women's account can only be credible if there is evidence they were "traumatized." But trauma is not an element of assault and it is not necessarily a reaction one would expect under these circumstances. The women themselves didn't claim to be traumatized. In the Taki article itself, one of them said that she did not find Assange "threatening." So it's not though the women come off as liars because they appeared fine shortly after the alleged rapes. You don't need to be traumatized in order to have been wronged. The wrong in this case isn't brutalizing a woman (as in a forcible rape case) but creating a situation against her will by which she must be concerned about STDs and perhaps unwanted pregnancy and by overriding her will.

Now the women's apparently sanguine attitude about the incident in the first instance may indeed raise reasonable doubt. But, it's not enough in my mind, to convince me in any way, shape, or form that these are villainous, lying bitches. Haven't you ever done a slow burn about something? I have never been raped but, like most people, I have been taken advantage of by others at one point or another. Usually my reaction is a calm, "Wow, I can't believe this person did that." And then as time goes on and I think about the situation more and the implications of the other person's actions sink in, I become more outraged than I was initially.

Again, I am not rushing to any conclusions about Assange's guilt or innocence. We may never know enough to reach a conlusion either way. But I am not gonna just assume that these women are completely crazy, when there a million plausible scenarios to explain their behavior.

2) FORNICATION: I think the issue of casual sex and fornication is a red herring in this discussion. Let's say everyone in the world abstains from sex except within marriage. Those guys who are inclined to have sex with a woman over her objection or lie to her about condom use are gonna do that to their wives. Being married to your sex partner isn't somehow a magical protection against sexual assault.

I suppose that you have more of a chance to assess a man's character before you marry. But some people are poor judges of character. Some people are good at masking their true character until they have you in their clutches. That means women are gonna wind up married to skeezy guys who abuse them.

As a practical matter, it is extremely difficult-to-impossible to prosecute a man for continuing to have sex after withdrawal of consent. But taking such laws off the books is tantamount to saying, "Sorry, ladies, once you are in bed with a man, he can do whatever he wants no matter how much it hurts you or puts you at risk or how much you don't want it done to you. You women are officially second class citizens. You can either retire to a nunnery or be owned by a man."

That means women are gonna wind up married to skeezy guys who abuse them.

As opposed to a succession of skeezy guys who abuse them? At least it would always be the same one, he would be taken off the market permanently (so other women would be spared), and he would carry some responsibility for her and the children she bears him. I can imagine that would perhaps temper his behaviour.

You can either retire to a nunnery or be owned by a man.

Indeed. But being faced with those two choices, how much more selective would women be? If you protect them even in voluntary fornication, you are absolving them from even the most minimal expectations of adult restraint and discernment.

At some point, we must learn to say, "Sorry women, but if you want to slut around, you will have to do so on your own and suffer the consequences of your reckless behavior." They are not, after all, children. They are adults, and should be expected to carry the weight of their own responsibilities.

I agree with Maggie about the Taki author's crudeness at some points in the article, and that it colored his piece, but I don't think he's wistful for the days when rape victims were ashamed. I think he was making an observation about how we can get some idea about what happened by an event's effects on its participants. I make this minor point because of something Maggie says later:

[T]rauma is not an element of assault...

Yes, it is. That may not be the current legal standard in this or that jurisdiction, but it should be--particularly where sex is concerned. Maggie notes that the women weren't traumatized and that they didn't even find Assange threatening. Agreed. She says you don't need to be traumatized in order to be wronged. Agreed. She says the women shouldn't be considered liars. Agreed, although I don't think we should consider them fountains of truth either. The closing sentence of this paragraph is really the key to our disagreement:

The wrong in this case isn't brutalizing a woman (as in a forcible rape case) but creating a situation against her will by which she must be concerned about STDs and perhaps unwanted pregnancy and by overriding her will. [Emphasis mine]

First of all, they both 'created a situation' where STDs and unwanted pregnancy were a concern, but the last bit is much more important. Men usually take the dominant role in the bedroom. Women like it, then they don't like it, then they like it again, and so on. While neither of us know what really happened in this instance, I can't help but notice that Maggie and I seem to have the same hypothesis. To use the colloquial, he rolled her. Ms. Ardin didn't have enough of a problem with whatever Assange did to stop screwing him, which is another way of saying that he didn't force himself on her. Even after talking it over with another of his conquests, she's not terribly worked up about it.

Like Maggie, I don't think these women are crazy, lying, or even calculating. It's much worse. They're entitled. They've reviewed a sexual encounter, noticed that they submitted to a man, and they want to imprison him for it.

A sexual assault charge isn't like a foot fault in tennis, it has huge consequences and stigma. If Assange stepped over the line, a little bit, you'd still want to be pretty sure whether you’d want to prosecute or not. If he had gone out with them afterwards apparently it wouldn't have been an issue, the dumping or cheating made it an issue.

The law should give bright lines to help people organise their behavior, these "stop now" cases in sex are very fuzzy. Consequently they should be handled discreetly before going to court. Perhaps with a police caution for the man or counseling or sympathy for the woman as required. If they're worried about sti's they could at least wait to see if they got one before going to court. That however, is too rational a solution and forgets that the two sexes are supposed to be at war with each other and that they should crap on each other whenever they get the chance.

This idea that women are willing to go to extreme lengths to ruin a man's life in revenge for some petty slight seems wholly implausible to me

It shouldn't be. Revenge for real or perceived slights is one of the top reasons for false rape allegations.

he failed to put on a condom in the first place despite her statement that she was consenting conditioned upon him wearing a condom

How, pray tell, did that happen? What woman doesn't watch the guy put on the condom, or put it on herself? And if he did put it on, how did he remove it without being seen? It requires the very conspicuous use of one's hands to remove a condom.

There's no doubt that the courts can be used as a medium for revenge. Consequently all allegations have to be viewed with suspicion and allegations have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. We know we're really in dangerous territory if the feminist lobby tries to lower the standard of proof to the balance of probabilities for rape cases. We as conservatives should definitely be more interested in the legal system because the left love it.

Liberalism is a melange of falsehoods, many of which are directly contradictory. What we're witnessing is the collision of two of these: the right of all individuals to sleep with whoever they like without consequence, and the right of a woman to never be used or objectified by a man. Whatever the outcome of this case, one right will be devoured by the other.

I, for one, feel no sympathy for Assange. His purpose was to sleep with as many random women as possible with no concern for any feelings or complications that might arise. He's obviously accustomed to getting his own way sexually, probably from a long string of one-night stands. Whatever discomfort he's currently feeling is well deserved.

By the way, Assange is technically a father. One wonders what lessons his son Daniel is supposed to glean from his father's treatment of women.

Oh, my gosh. He has a son? That does make his behavior even more shameful. He's certainly a Super Creep, although sexual immorality alone isn't currently a reason to incarcerate people. But I think we should be supporting him in this instance because of the terrible legal/moral precedent it would set.

As far as I can tell, as the law stands, there's no way for a man to prove that he didn't rape a woman. Except to prove that he was someplace else at the time, or have video evidence.

If they're worried about sti's they could at least wait to see if they got one before going to court.

Women who really worry about venereal disease or illegitimate pregnancy don't fornicate with strange men, especially man-whores like Assange. That's just BS on their part.

the right of a woman to never be used or objectified by a man

Yes, this gets back to Mark's original point. Women feel "used" if they give sex and get little in return. But most women who have sex outside of marriage (or at least a LTR) aren't getting much back. It's just slam-bam-thank you ma'am. That they then feel "used" is to be expected, so it's hard to feel sorry for them. They were cheap and were treated accordingly. Oh, well. That's hardly a tragedy, and every woman has to learn that lesson about men. If they don't want to feel like they've been treated as a mere masturbatory aid, then they shouldn't offer themselves up as one.

To paraphrase Will Rogers:There are three kinds of women: The ones that learn by listening; The few who learn by observation; The rest of them have to get treated like trash and find out for themselves.

To be honest, prostitutes are getting a better deal than these women. At least they walk away with some cash. These women are just unpaid prostitutes, which makes them the Biggest Loser. Trying to "get even" through the court system is just more immoral and pathetic behavior on their part. Grow up, ladies, and learn to keep your legs closed.

I actually find it all a bit ironic. The feminists said wives are just prostitutes because their husbands can "use them for sex", while a single woman is sexually independent. Um... yeah. We're prostitutes who only have one client, who are protected and provided for, whose children are cherished, who are cared for into old age, and who are honored in society. Who is really getting the better deal?

Which I find quite odd, since women get very offended at the idea that a man might want sex in return for what he gives her.

LOL. Yeah, they're total hypocrites about it. Women don't even feel like they "owe" their husbands sex or offspring. They think the mere pleasure of their company should be plenty payback for pledging your life and fruit of your efforts. You can see it in divorce proceedings, "Well, I may have refused to get off the pill and made him sleep on the couch for the past 8 years, but I still think I'm entitled to half of everything and lifetime alimony."

But really, if she refuses to have sex with you and/or bear your children, is she really a wife? If she's not honoring her marital vows and providing the services associated with "being a wife", isn't she just a roommate? If she only has sex with you a couple of times, in order to get pregnant, and then turns her back to you in bed, is she a wife, or just a one-night-stand that won't go away and mooches off of you?

Randian, I can think a lot of scenarios in which a woman might not be aware right away that a man wasn't wearing a condom. I hate to be gross, but she could have been turned away from him (prepared to engage in sex in a position that was not face to face). Maybe she was pleasuring herself. Or maybe she was aware of it, but he had her in a position where he went ahead anyway.

I am not saying that's what happened, but again, we can't leap to conclusions that the woman's story is ridiculous when we haven't even actually heard the women's whole story.

Again, I find myself agreeing with Jesse 7. Of course, the burden of proof in a rape case, as in every other crime, should remain "beyond a reasonable doubt." But to me, that doesn't mean automatically doubting everything an accuser says. It means listening carefully and then asking yourself whether the story adds up beyond a reasonable doubt when considered on its own merits and when considered in light of any other evidence in the case.

I have to admit to being revolted by the notion Alte puts forward that sex is a quid-pro-quo -- a service women provide to men in exchange for other things. Sadly, I think this is a view that many men and many women buy into. It promotes an ethic by which the man can do whatever the hell he wants because after all, he's the customer, right? He's given her something -- a dinner out or a wedding ring and now she owes him, right? And if it's just a casual fling, then well she's a sucker for giving it away for free. Her loss for giving herself away cheaply. Women should just grin and bear it when husbands or boyfriends or casual flings do things to them against their will. It's the price of doing business, I guess, in a world where we are all whores to one degree or another (except those of us who flee to the nunnery).

What an awful, depressing view of sex. I am sorry, Alte. I'm married myself, but I don't think I could hack it in a marriage where sex is considered a service I provide in exchange for my husband keeping his commitments. There are otherwise to view these things that are not quite so, well, cold-hearted.

How about sex as a mutually pleasurable activity? Something that both the man and the woman can benefit from as a good in and of itself?

Yes, I certainly agree that it is wrong for a wife (OR a husband) to consistently decline sex. In a committed relationship, BOTH parties have an obligation to make a good faith effort to please the other and that includes sex. Why is it so hard to understand that women like sex too??? (The Jewish tradition, at least, understands this. They place the obligation on the husband to satisfy his wife sexually.)

I firmly believe that if we had a culture in which sex was viewed as a mutually beneficial collaboration, rather than a consumer transaction between the sexes, we would have fewer skeevy guys forcing women into things to which they haven't agreed and fewer women feeling bad if the guy doesn't buy her roses afterwards.

Please don't equate the behavior women owe their husbands with that which they owe "casual flings or boyfriends". The obligation arises out of the vows only, and anything else is fornication. My point is that if she is fornicating, then I don't really care about whether the guy meets her expectations afterward.

The ideal of "mutual enjoyment" is the feminist/progressive one, and it doesn't work out because of how human nature works. Women do, instinctively, feel like they are "giving it up", even when they are willing and eager for it. Even if it's great and they want more afterward, they would feel like they had somehow "lost out" if the guy just got up and left afterward. They're inevitably expecting something in return, perhaps because they are the ones who bear children.

The sacrament makes it indissoluble and bestows the graces we need to make it work, but it doesn't negate the core nature of the institution (he provides and protects, she gives it up and bears the children). If it did, Catholics (I don't know if you're Catholic, but I am) would not be required to pledge their willingness to procreate before the marriage can be conducted, and marriages would not have to be consecrated with successful sex (if he can't get it up, she can apply for an annulment).

Furthermore, every married woman should be grateful to have sex with her husband because it gives her a chance to deepen their relationship, as sex is highly unitive (the frequency is even more important than the quality, in fact). We are only supposed to deny each other "for a time". The rest of the time, get busy.

I find it hard to side with Assange too but if someone is being incarcerated on a "rape" charge you want it to be more substantial than that.

On Maggie's point about sex being a "transaction", I find myself agreeing. Its possible to live in an "acquisitive" culture where sex is another thing that we accumulate, but this process can strip it down. When you go to a nice restaurant you don't just want food in exchange for money. You want an enjoyable evening, pleasant surroundings, effort made on behalf of the establishment. You can't escape from food for money but nor is that the whole of the transaction so to speak. Sex as something we accumulate is a bit wrong, because that treats the other person as a thing and not more. Everything that turns people "too much" into things I think is a little wrong because it denies or has the potential to strip down our humanity. This might be a slightly precious attitude but its still relevant I think.

If women want to be treated as more than just objects they could also treat men as more than just objects, hate objects. Men are stronger physically, women might resent that but they are and you can't run to the state every time that gets you down. Don't sleep with a guy you just met and again run to the state if it doesn't work out perfectly. Before someone is on a rape charge I'd like to hear that their behavior was pretty bloody awful. Stop acting like you're the victim all of the time. As was pointed out in the previous post when it comes to inequality in the workplace soon women will have no argument left, if they haven't already, then what are they going to do? There's more to life than just your sense of grievance.

Finally Van Wijk made the point of conflicting entitlements in liberalism, the entitlement for easy sex and the entitlement for respect for women. These are contradictory and you won't stabalise them simply by beefing up rape laws.

I saw a sexual assault case being prosecuted in court once where the alleged offender was a hairdresser who brushed his comb against women's nipples in the course of cutting their breast length hair. Something is very wrong with a case like that, nonetheless the prosecution managed to find 4 or 5 women to pursue the matter. Couldn't they have just said don't do that or that makes me feel uncomfortable as it seems likely that the hairdresser didn't do it deliberately? We're not doing any favors for women in pushing cases like that and even the prosecutor seemed half hearted in his efforts.

In this instance its Assange in the firing line but it could easily be someone else. Rape law can't become the plaything of feminists.

Its possible to live in an "acquisitive" culture where sex is another thing that we accumulate, but this process can strip it down.

But your objection depends upon the assumption that husbands want to have sex with their wives because they think of them as "sex objects". Au contraire, a man who thinks women are just sex objects isn't very likely to get married, in the first place. If he's sought her out and pledged his life and labors to her, he's basically elevated her above every other woman on the planet. That's hardly what men do when the "objectify" a woman, that's what they do when they love a woman.

Men want to have sex with their wives because they crave that sort of physical intimacy. Sure, sometimes they just want to "get off", but often there's more to it. It's not that my husband can't get enough of sex, it's that he can't get enough of me. That's just how men are when they're in love; they want to cleave. They're like leeches that way, LOL.

So when she pushes her husband away and feigns a headache, or whatever, what he understands (and, let's be honest, what she's really saying) is, "I just don't love you enough to bother. Go masturbate, or something, and leave me alone." It's like a slap in the face. It'd be like he quite his job on a whim because he just couldn't be bothered to provide for her. Or if he sat back sipping a beer while watching her be attacked because he just couldn't be bothered to protect her. It's unloving and neglectful.

Marriage is supposed to teach us about love through the mutual sacrifices we make. Sex and childbearing are the only services that women offer their husbands in marriage. Everything else (cooking, cleaning, extra income) are things that women would do for themselves, even if they were unmarried. If they don't offer those two things, what exactly do they offer as a show of love? Their company? Does he need to marry her for that? And what about when her company isn't pleasant?

When you go to a nice restaurant you don't just want food in exchange for money. You want an enjoyable evening, pleasant surroundings, effort made on behalf of the establishment.

Exactly. So women aren't just obligated to acquiesce, they're obligated to put some effort into it and provide a source of good sex. Some women offer up something akin to necrophilia with an unwashed, beached whale, which is disdainful of them.

As for all of the objections about wives "putting out", what is the problem? It's not like she even has to do anything other than lie there and look alive. If she can't even be bothered to do that because she's such a control freak, she's a bad wife. The same women who complain about that "chore", will spend 30 minutes every morning fixing their hair and preening in the mirror. Their contempt for their husbands is palpable.

Finally Van Wijk made the point of conflicting entitlements in liberalism, the entitlement for easy sex and the entitlement for respect for women. These are contradictory and you won't stabalise them simply by beefing up rape laws.

True. Since these are the foundation stones of liberalism, they can only be stabilized by the destruction of liberalism itself. When liberalism runs out of unprincipled exceptions or two of its tenets collide, all that is left is for it to begin destroying itself.

It's quite possible that Swedish law supports Anna Ardin's notion of when and under what circumstances a woman can withdraw consent. Assange chose to be a player in Sweden without having read the laws. An evil law ensnares an evil man. In the modern liberal world, how could it be otherwise?

Oh, my gosh. He has a son? That does make his behavior even more shameful.

Apparently Assange and his girlfriend had a child out of wedlock and then spent the next decade in a nasty custody battle. According to this article, he's had no contact with his son for three years.

Assange himself was raised by a domineering mother who went through a long string of step-fathers and "male guests." Shocking, right?

But I think we should be supporting him in this instance because of the terrible legal/moral precedent it would set.

To be honest, I'm not sure precedent could make Swedish law any worse than it already is. When liberalism devours parts of itself, the result is quite messy. Imagine the carnage when the whole rotten edifice comes down.

Julian Assange likes to portray himself as a crusader against corrupt governments, but this isn't the truth. His organization leaked the names and addresses of British National Party members in 2008 and again in 2009. The BNP is not what you would call a powerful party. In fact they have essentially no power in Britain at the moment. But I'm sure Assange considered them racist, and that is why the names were leaked. Assange is not the opposite of the governments he despises, but the mirror image. He'll get no support of any kind from me.

I sincerely hope the West doesn't crash and can sort itself out. However, situations like in Europe, where there is rising debt and social problems, are a wake up call for everyone. The rise of China has been a wake up call for the US and us. There was a notion for a while that history was over and all of the hard accomplishments of life, war, poverty etc were over and we could sit back and enjoy the good times in a complacent slumber. Our only concern being to right the issues of the past, unfortunately not.

Van Wijk,

We've started taking our liberalism "pure" and undiluted. I would be seriously interested to know where the attitude of entitlement comes from because liberalism has been around for a little while but now we live in it full blown. Entitlement is what our society clings to when in trouble, "but I have a right to (insert whatever or everything)". If you take this notion away from people they seem to emotionally crash because their concept of individualism, life and freedom are so caught up in rights.

We've started taking our liberalism "pure" and undiluted. I would be seriously interested to know where the attitude of entitlement comes from because liberalism has been around for a little while but now we live in it full blown.

You may be on to something. Does it seem to you that liberals have become more focused on rights in the past few years?

Here's the gist of my reply to Alte which didn't get posted:

Assange had a child out of wedlock in 1989 and spent the next decade in a nasty custody battle with his ex-girlfriend. According to this article, he has not contacted his son in over three years. It seems that Assange himself was raised by a liberated mother and a long series of step-fathers and "male guests." Go figure.

Assange styles himself as a single brave voice challenging big bad government, but this is not the case. His organization leaked the names and home addresses of British National Party members in 2008 and again in 2009. The BNP is not what you would call a powerful party; in fact they have essentially no power in Britain at the moment, and are a constant whipping boy for the British government. But I'm sure being racist was more than enough justification for unleashing the wrath of WikiLeaks.

In truth, Assange is the mirror image of the governments he despises. The WikiLeaks phenomenon was never about promoting regime change or more government transparency; it was always about a leftist organization attempting to damage a government perceived (incorrectly) as being right-wing. Assange does not represent the fundamental change he thinks he does.